What is cancer? A focus on Grade Group 1 prostate cancer.

Since the widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, the prevalence of Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer has risen. Historically, these patients were subjected to overtreatment of this otherwise indolent disease process, leading to significant quality-of-life detriments. Active surveillance as a primary management strategy has allowed for a focus on early detection while minimising morbidity from unnecessary intervention. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of GG1 prostatic adenocarcinoma, including its histological features, genomic differentiators, clinical progression, and implications for treatment guidelines, all supporting the movement to reclassify GG1 disease as a non-cancerous entity.

Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Online Tools to Decrease Out-of-Pocket Prescription Costs for Patients: A Practical Guide for Urologists.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who seek urologic care have recently reported a high degree of financial toxicity from prescription medications, including management for nephrolithiasis, urinary incontinence, and urological oncology. Estimating out-of-pocket costs can be challenging for urologists in the US because of variable insurance coverage, local pharmacy distributions, and complicated prescription pricing schemes. This article discusses resources that urologists can adopt into their practice and share with patients to help lower out-of-pocket spending for prescription medications. METHODS: We identify 4 online tools that are designed to direct patients toward more affordable prescription medication options: the Medicare Part D Plan Finder, GoodRx, Amazon, and the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. A brief historical overview and summary for patients and clinicians are provided for each online resource. A patient-centered framework is provided to help navigate these 4 available tools in clinic. RESULTS: Among the 4 tools we identify, there are multiples tradeoffs to consider as financial savings and features can vary. First, patients insured by Medicare should explore the Part D Plan Finder each year to compare drug plans. Second, patients who need to urgently refill a prescription at a local pharmacy should visit GoodRx. Third, patients who are prescribed recurrent generic prescriptions for chronic conditions can utilize the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. Finally, patients who are prescribed 3 or more chronic medications can benefit from subscribing to Amazon RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription medications for urologic conditions can be expensive. This article includes 4 online resources that can help patients access medications at their most affordable costs. Urologists can provide this framework to their patients to help support lowering out-of-pocket drug costs.

Urologist-level variation in the management of T1a renal cell carcinoma: A population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Lack of strict indications in current guidelines have led to significant variation in management patterns of small renal masses. The impact of the urologist on the management approach for patients with small renal masses has not been explored previously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with small renal masses from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013 were identified and assigned to primary urologists. Mixed-effects logistic models were used to evaluate factors associated with different management approaches, estimate urologist-level probabilities of each approach, assess management variation, and determine urologist impact on choice of approach. RESULTS: A total of 12,402 patients with 2,794 corresponding primary urologists were included in the study. At the individual urologist level, the estimated case-adjusted probability of different approaches varied markedly: nonsurgical management (mean, 12.8%; range, 4.9%-36.1%); thermal ablation (mean, 10.8%; range, 2.4%-66.3%); partial nephrectomy (mean, 30.1%; range, 10.1%-66.6%); and radical nephrectomy (mean, 40.4%; range, 17.7%-71.6%). Compared to patient and tumor characteristics, the primary urologist was a more influential measured factor, accounting for 13.6% (vs. 12.9%), 33.8% (vs. 2.1%), 15.1% (vs. 8.4%), and 13.5% (vs. 4.0%) of the variation in management choice for nonsurgical management, thermal ablation, partial nephrectomy, and radical nephrectomy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists in the management of small renal masses and appears to be driven primarily by urologist preference and practice patterns. Our findings emphasize the need for unified guidance regarding management of these masses to reduce unwarranted variation in care.